Scott Gambler 20 - Review

Scott have been a regular force on the World Cup circuit for a number of years, and with solid results each season, it will not be long before they reach the top step on the podium. Our feature test is the 2013 Gambler 20, which is a more affordable version, built around the same chassis used on the World Cup Circuit by Brendan Fairclough and the rest of the Gstaad-Scott team. We had the '20 on test for a while, and now that Scott have pried it from our fingers, the time has come to write up our thoughts on the model that sits in the middle of Gambler range. With a suspension lineup from Fox, a Shimano Zee drivetrain, brakes by Avid and an e*Thirteen chain guide, there is no shortage of spec on this bike. No true downhill bike can ever be called cheap, but on paper, the $4,150 Gambler 20 certainly puts together an appealing pitch for being affordable.

Scott's fork bumpers are well designed and do not detract from the smooth lines of its hydroformed frame tubes. Flush, double-pass welds give the frame a molded carbon look and external cables are used where quick access in the pits is of paramount concern.

Construction

While Scott have significant experience of carbon manufacturing, the Gambler continues with a 6061 aluminium frame. That said, until you look closely and spot a couple of the flush, double-pass welds on the smoothly hydroformed tubeset, the matt black frame could easily be mistaken for carbon. The Gambler chassis looks exactly like last year's model, but it has been upgraded throughout - no doubt, as a result of lessons learned on the World Cup DH circuit.

Stiffer pivot design: To improve stiffness and strength of the single pivot frame, the axle diameter has been increased from 15mm to 25mm, while the bearings are now set 20mm further apart. The amount of material and work that has gone into the area around the pivot is significant, with a single-piece forging on either side linking the stays to the floating link for the shock. This stiffness, mated to the wider pivot and bigger bearings should help keep the bike maintenance free for longer. After six months, we've seen no need to tighten anything up, and despite a lot of riding in pretty poor conditions the bearings are all still feeling smooth as silk when cycled through the range of travel without a shock.

Scott's 12-millimeter rear axle uses an eccentric taper on one end and an offset thread at the other that locks it into place. Reportedly, this boosts torsional stiffness in the swingarm.

Adjustable-angle headset cups: A change from the outgoing frame was a move away from the rotatable sleeve in the head tube in favour of the more widely accepted offset headset cups. Same effect, but different means of achieving it. Like a lot of the finishing kit on the bike, the adjustable-angle cups were Syncros items, that can be configured for zero, plus or minus one, or plus or minus two degrees of angle change. The fixed adjustment cups are easy to set up and promise to eliminate the creaks and crackles of ball-and socket type adjustable headsets.

Bump stops: Integrated bump stops are a great feature that seem to be ever more popular with the mainstream manufacturers, and for good reason as correctly executed they can significantly reduce damage to a frame in a crash. Bolted in place using a small T25 bolt they worked with both the stock Fox 40's as well as with the RockShox World Cup Boxxer we also ran for a time.

Intelligent cable routing: We liked the full housing cabling that was well routed from front to back, minimizing drag in the cables and reducing the risk of snags to almost nil. The brake is fully external which makes hot-swapping at a race a simple procedure, and the gear cable runs through the chainstay to keep it protected from chain slap. Just make sure you have shares in a zip-tie company for when the time comes to swap brakes; there are a lot of points to clip the cable to.

The Gambler's rear derailleur cable is tucked inside the swingarm and routed through the forged swingarm yoke (left). Elsewhere, housings are guided through an extensive network of cable ties and external frame fittings.

Scott's Floating Link Explained

Scott's new chassis is to all intents and purposes a single pivot and they make no attempt to hide this. Scott's chief engineer, Ben Walker, is a more than capable rider, and along with the development team, has spent a lot of time testing numerous pivot placements. With an eye to World Cup performance, the raised pivot on the final design was found to offer the rearward axle path they were after for big hits, while managing the downside of less efficient pedaling to an acceptable degree. What those links therefore do, rather than manipulating that axle path, is drive the long 3.5ch-in stroke shock in a manner which provides a slight rising (or progressive) rate as it moves through the travel. The long-stroke shock allows Scot to use an average leverage ratio of less than 2.5:1, which reportedly increases shock reliability enhances the effects of damping and spring rate changes.

Scott's 'Floating Link' pivots on low-friction ball bearings. The links are configured to handle most of the rotation in order to minimize the rotation of the shock-eye bushings as the damper is compressed. The unusual linkage also transfers the suspension forces to the seat tube, which eliminates much stress from the main frame members.

Along with the reduction in leverage ratio, great lengths have been taken to minimize friction and force required to activate the system, and it shows, or rather feels, because the initial travel is very, very smooth. By working out the link design carefully, rotation of the shock bushes has been reduced by over two thirds, which is really quite a significant amount when you consider that it's a dry bush you're rotating, and that is naturally going to be high friction. So why 'Floating Link'? Well, much as it appears to be a motocross link flipped upside down, there are two counter-rotating links; one which is attached to the swingarm to drive the shock, the second holds everything in the correct place to control the suspension curve. It's this first link which is in essence floating as it isn't attached to the frame at either end. While first glance may make it seem like a quite complex design, it really isn't, as it incorporates no more bearings than many other multi-link bikes. Thankfully, because of the stiffness displayed by the main pivot, the ball bearings in the linkage receive little if any lateral loading, which greatly increases their lifespan.

Adjustability

The ability to tweak a bike to your every whim can be a great thing, just as much as it can be a terrible thing. And which of those statements counts for you comes down to how good you are at knowing what you want, and how you go about achieving your goal. With the included adjustable chips and headset cups it's possible to independently raise the Gambler's bottom bracket height; lengthen the wheelbase by 15mm; and alter the head angle by plus or minus two degrees. If you are the sort of rider who is happy to ride a bike as it comes, then you will have no problem leaving it in the standard settings and riding it as it is, for you will have a very capable machine.

With the included adjustable chips and headset cups it's possible to independently raise the Gambler's bottom bracket height, lengthen the wheelbase by 15 millimeters and alter the head angle by plus or minus two degrees.

With the myriad of adjustment on offer, there is virtually everything you need to make the bike work for you - or to configure it for any track in the world. We didn't really play around with the head angle much as, we felt it to be about as slack as we needed it, especially given we were also running it in the low setting for much of the test, but the ease with which the adjustments can be made definitely encourages you to experiment.

...Even with the stock, 350-pound spring that was way too stiff for us, the suspension still tracked incredibly well on off-camber trails, littered with tree roots. Things improved once we dropped down to a 275-pound spring, and it served to highlight that, for all the talk of reduced friction and increased sensitivity, it was actually noticeable and beneficial on the trail - something that can't always be said for marketing talk.

Despite weighing in around the 40-pound mark, the Gambler accelerates spritely on both smooth ground and rough. he bike seems to be able to differentiate between pedaling forces and those coming up from the trail, and under power, its weight was never intrusive on the trail. On fast terrain, once the length and stiffness of the bike really started to come into its own, the ability to sprint over rough ground without getting kicked was really noticeable. We could give the bike 100-percent, while paying less attention to trail debris and ruts that would throw many bikes off line. The downside with the length of the large-size frame we chose came in sharper, slower corners where we occasionally struggled to get the power down effectively (we normally ride medium frames, which may have eliminated this problem altogether). Not once though, did we have an issue with banging the crankarms in the low bottom bracket setting, which came as a surprise, albeit a merciful one. We put this down to the natural ramp-up of the linkage which, when combined with the custom-valved shock, stabilized the ride-height and created a firm platform through which to transmit power to the ground.

At speed and in the rough: This is always going to be home territory for the Gambler. After all, a 1210mm wheelbase in the short setting, a nominal head angle of 62 degrees and a bottom bracket perfectly in line with the axles is certainly pretty raked out geometry. What we were able to deduce from our time with the bike is that at higher speeds it becomes eager and more nimble, trading a slight heavy, lumbering trait at low speed for a lack of nervousness at high.

Suspension: One thing we did notice was that even with the stock, 350-pound spring that was way too stiff for us, the suspension still tracked incredibly well on off-camber trails littered with tree roots. Things improved once we dropped down to a 275-pound spring, and it served to highlight that, for all the talk of reduced friction and increased sensitivity, it was actually noticeable and beneficial on the trail, something that can't always be said for marketing talk. For faster and rougher tracks a 300-pound spring would have been ideal the ideal choice, but thanks to the suspension's progressive geometry, we never felt as though the travel was running out too quickly, even on big compressions and G-outs. One factor which we did notice, was a tendency to feel harsh as it was battering through a succession of large bumps. We put it down to the shock being a little too over-damped on rebound, and having spoken to several privateers on the World Cup circuit, it is a feeling that they also share. Think Euro bike-park braking bumps and you're on the money of where it is most noticeable, but even then, the Gambler 20 performs within an acceptable level.

Technical riding: And when that pace does slow, what then? The centralized mass of the frame comes into effect, giving the nimble feeling which belies the weight carried by a traditional construction. Compared to some shorter and steeper bikes there was a definite cut off where the bike seemed to lose nimbleness, falling over into a world of sluggishness and ponderousness, almost as though someone had flicked an off switch. However, as long as a little gradient is there, tight is no problem, but there was definitely an element of feeling a little over-biked on some smaller trails. Get it in the mountains where it should be ridden though and no such problem exists. It also leads you to ride aggressively, utilizing the stability of the long wheelbase and the slack angles to maximum effect. If you're a rider who hides from aggressive riding then you may struggle to get the most out of it when it's tight, but the flipside of that is you should be going faster on the straights. The development of suspension and geometry has been such that the current generation of bikes are proving that slack and long can work in a wide variety of situations, and allow riders to go faster on their local trails even if their name isn't Gee, Gwin or Hill. The Scott still requires effort to hustle it through tight corners but two things stand out; get it right and it can rail tight turns fast, and then you're free to let it rip on the straights.

Overall impressions: Depending on your local riding the stock settings may work brilliantly for you. However, if your natural riding terrain is less speed and more technical you may wish to experiment with the higher bottom bracket, and/or an independent steepening of the head angle with one of the supplied cups. The added wheelbase became a real boon in faster turns, where the space between the wheels made for effortless weight transfer, and reduced any sudden step out from either wheel when on loose surfaces to make for an easily driftable machine. Overall, the package is one of cohesion, with the angles matching the progression of the suspension to give a rider great confidence both at high speed, and when the pace slows. It isn't an out and out plow bike as some World Cup bikes we have ridden in the past, although the trend seems to be moving away from that, and while the geometry gives stability at speed, you do still need to ride it nimbly when the going gets rough to get the absolute best out of it. Get your riding dialed into what the bike needs though, and it's capabilities are absolutely up there with the very best.

Test riders gave high marks to the Gambler's technical handling and were impressed by the tenacity of its Schwalbe Muddy Mary tires. The affordable OEM version of the Fox 40 was not a strong-point, however.

Component Report

Schwalbe Muddy Mary Tires: Good - The Muddy Mary is a tire which has proven itself repeatedly since its introduction to the gravity scene. The 2.35-inch casing may sound small if you're used to Maxxis' sizing but it actually comes out to be slightly bigger than a 2.5-inch High Roller. The Schwalbe DH casing is tough, stiff and very puncture resistant. Traction is ensured by Schwalbe's tacky VertStar compound, which provides optimum cornering and braking performance. Aggressive blocks wrap out the package that provides a surprisingly capable all 'round package for typical British conditions of loam, roots and loose dirt when the ground is soft and damp. Bad - VertStar compound wears quickly and the large tread blocks begin to struggle a little when they hard-pack comes out - but even then, Muddy Marys are a predictable tire that can be a genuine 'go-to' for nearly every riding condition you're likely to encounter.

We found the steel-backed OEM e*thirteen LG1 chainguide to be as good a performer as its pro-level namesake - until the guide pulley went south.

E*Thirteen LG1 chainguide: Good - At first glance the LG1 chainguide looks no different to the LG1+ and as far as performance is concerned they're indistinguishable. Of course, the steel backing plate isn't as light as the more expensive LG1+, but as the weight is so low down on the bike you really would be hard pushed to notice it. Bad - The only real problem we've had with the LG1/+ is the lower jockey wheel which died prematurely.

Scott now owns Syncros, which is a good thing, because the brand is still run by riders who understand pro-level performance.

Syncros cockpit: Good - Given that Scott now own Syncros it's no surprise to see the brand cropping up on components fitted to almost all of their bikes. But is this a bad thing? Our experience says anything but. All the components are well made, feel solid and have a classy finish that doesn't scream house brand, while the very nature of Syncros being a house brand allows Scott to integrate components properly into their bikes. The bars were perhaps a little on the wide side at 800mm but that's nothing a pipe cutter won't sort if you don't have the arms of an orangutan, and the classically color-matched blue highlights produced a very cohesive final build that looked every ounce a factory race bike. Bad - The only Syncros cockpit items that we found any criticism for were the overly thin grips, which we quickly swapped for something with a little more meat on them.

Shimano's Shadow Plus clutch-equipped Zee rear changer lacks the mutant-strength of its Saint counterpart, but it shifts as well. Zee cranks are the real DH deal.

Shimano Zee drivetrian: Good - Zee comes in as a very competitive Saint-lite, offering almost as good performance for significantly less money. Zee cranks are tough, the shifter is precise, and the Shadow Plus clutch system fitted to its short-cage rear derailleur helps to keep the bike running silently. Bad - Granted, Zee isn't as tough as Saint and while we haven't had any issues with the rear derailleur, we've certainly seen more bent Zee changers than Saints. Also, the sculpting on the Zee crankarms wears down to bare metal in a hurry.

Syncros wheels: Good - Simple, reliable, and built with tried and tested components. The Formula-built hubs are pretty well sealed against the elements, and although they'll probably need a rebuild before the season is out, the cartridge bearings are mercifully easy to swap out when the time comes. The 32-millimeter-width rims, made by Alex, are a resilient option for both racing and bike park riding. Bad - The only issue we had with the wheels was that the rear wheel had a propensity for losing spoke tension. While it isn't difficult to pull a spoke wrench out, it seemed at times that the rear wheel was only good for one or two runs before the spokes got wobbly.

Avid Elixir 5 brakes: Bad - There is always going to be a downside on a bike where price has been a key factor in its spec, and while there is little wrong with Avid Elixirs per se, they are outgunned on a bike with this much potential, especially at speed. We'd like to see Shimano Zee brakes added to match the drivetrain.

The Fox Performance 40 is only sold to OEM customers. Syncros wheels have all the right components, but the build gave us some trouble.

Fox OEM 40 Perfomance: Bad - The performance of the 'Performance' series 40 fork was, without a doubt, the single biggest let down on the bike. With just rebound adjustment, and no ability to adjust compression, we found the constant pitch and dive to severely hamper performance. While it would no doubt feel significantly better on groomed trails, there was a further issue where the transition from rebound to compression and felt completely undamped. Initially, we thought it was just us and that we were possibly being overly critical after a lot of time riding only top-end products, but unfortunately this seems to be a common complaint from other Gambler 20 owners in the UK, given the steep, rooted and more technical nature of our tracks which often leads to a lot of rider weight sitting over the front wheel. Throwing an alternative, pro-level fork on the bike brought about an immediate transformation and allowed us to push much harder in corners without feeling that the front end was constantly diving or trying to wash away.

Pinkbike's take:

Scott really hit the nail on the head with their new Gambler chassis and the number of privateers choosing to run them is testament to the work they've put in to create a true racer's bike. The geometry is spot on, and although an XL wouldn't go amiss for really tall riders, the bike is very balanced in almost all situations. The only time it doesn't feel totally planted is through flatter corners where the wheelbase and raked out head angle reduce weight over the front wheel and allow it to push wide in much the same way as a car would understeer. But it's a minor criticism given its big mountain pretense and the relative sparsity of flat corners in this terrain. The price is attractive, and so too is most of the componentry. Thoughtful touches, such as the cable routing, fork bumpers and properly molded, rubber-coated chain and seat stay protectors, eliminated the need for any home-brew modifications. However, detracting from the overall performance were two specific products - the Fox 40 R fork and the Elixir 5 brakes. The brakes felt a little under-powered, especially on the back of riding a bike with the Zee brakes, a setup that would have been a perfect complement to the Shimano Zee drivetrain. The second issue, with the Fox 40 R fork, was a more deeply rooted problem, and one which dented our confidence on the roughest and most challenging terrain. Overall though, the new Gambler is a very capable downhiller, with more adjustment than any rider is likely to need, and a capable suspension system that provides great traction and stability, urging its rider to go faster and harder with each successive run. - Alasdair MacLennan

(gator likes to romp) im sorry but $4,150 is not very reasonable to me, how about $1000 or hell why not $50why is it that the big business wanna just be greedy, why cant you just do it to fuel peoples desire to be constructive and get out and exersiseim sure that if you did that you would get people a million times better than semenuk or all the other riders. People would be doing triple front flips and the sport would really be recognised

@corywilliam you get what you pay for mate. r&d and everything racks up a big bill especially now that dh is such a big business and the guys at scott all love to ride bikes but they also have to turn a profit, otherwise they'll only ride bikes and not produce them, duh. there'll also be lot's of people wanting a cut from sales (manufacturing, pro riders, r&d staff, distributors, retailers etc.).and it was pretty clear honda isn't working on their dh bike any longer after they pulled the pin on it aeons ago, they crushed all existing bikes. and if the price of the gambler made you shocked you might pass out if we had a RRP for a honda.

i was just wondering if the honda company still had the patents for the frame if not than another company should try it
didnt mean to offend you, it was just a stupid idea but more on the hippy side. im also really really low on cash and thought ''eh why the hell not''

@tabletop84 - Yes, Scott actually pays for the Ferrari 458 that I drive to the office every day... or not. There are hundreds of bikes that could be tested but only so much time. The YT is on our radar, as are many others. You might see one on here in the future.

Actually the problem with YT and Canyon is that they actually have to step up to the plate and SUBMIT a bike for testing... Magazines (print or internet) only test what is given to them to test. They don't go out spending their own money to buy stuff to test. So if you want to see Brand X and Product Y tested... and the manufacturers won't step up to the plate to provide one for free... spend the money yourself or stop f'ing complaining about it.

There is a commonly held understanding that advertising pays for websites. You only "test" stuff that your advertisers give to you to "test". Have you ever featured anything on here from a company that doesn't pay for advertising? I'm guessing not. That's also the reason nothing ever gets a bad review. Maybe you might offer a few tips for improvement, but nothing ever gets slated. Why not?

And that "understanding" is wrong. While companies are free to buy advertising from places that gave them a good review, many magazines test things from companies which have not ever advertised with them. MBA has for example posted many bad product and bike reviews, and in some cases companies re-submitted improved versions of their products for testing again.

@jaame - Sorry, you are 100% wrong on that one. We often test things from non-advertisers, but also keep in mind that many, many companies do advertise on PB so it may not look like that. Actually, due to geo-tagging of ads, more companies advertise than most readers are aware of.

While I don't usually jump in to defend myself or the website, I know that I am very impartial when it comes to reviews - I'm actually not even aware of all of those who do advertise on the site. Anyways, feel free to go through my blog if you want to see me call out some products. Here is a 'Product Pick' piece from just last week: www.pinkbike.com/news/Pinkbike-Product-Picks-july-26-2013.html as one example of some of the ''actions'' that you speak of. I can offer you plenty of more examples if you'd rather choose to assume things instead of looking at some past work of mine on here.

@jaame - You severely misunderstand where magazine revenue comes from, sorry. It comes from advertisers, just like here. I'm sorry that you don't believe that the media is impartial, but the boring truth is that there simply isn't some sort of conspiracy, and that reviewers/testers at PB and other media outlets have very little connection to the people who provide the gear for review. I know for a fact that advertisers have pulled out of media outlets due to critical reviews or a writer breaking a story before it was intended to happen.

Mike, is there any chance that we get a review of those 2 brands that sell directly? Yt and canyon, I am really interested in them, well more their enduro lines, because they are substantially cheaper than any other brand and it is all I can afford

READ THE THREAD. PB will test YT or Canyon when YT or Canyon SEND THEM A BIKE TO TEST.
In the mean time there are other bike websites that have a wider range of bikes tested where you'll find lot's of reviews on the bikes you want. USE GOOGLE.

I was talking to a journalist from MTBUK about this very thing. They reviewed some Trek bikes years ago and gave them a terrible review. Trek pulled all their advertising from the magazine. Instead of never reviewing another Trek bike they just went to a resort and rented one the next time they wanted to review one. Cheap and easy - and still gave Trek a crap review. If Pinkbike never gets bikes from YT or Canyon can't they rent one and review it? I am sure $100 could be found in the budget.

I don't know the ins and outs of advertising pressures. But, if reviews are truly unbiased, they could be made much more useful by comparing the product to the best in class at the price point, and linking to their reviews. Sure, a reader can trawl through reviews, but surely the guys who are testing all these different products can compare them better and quicker.

elixir 5's do not belong on a bike of this magnitude. It's unsafe. With shimano's ceramic pistons, ergonomic lever feel, and sweet ease of maintenance, the avid's hardly even compare. Saying that they needed to keep the price point down, fine. But taking the hit on brakes rather than drivetrain, or a fork, is ridiculous. Throw a boxxer on there, and some sram x9, then the brakes can at least be zee or and avid code. the average rider that can afford this bike would not be doing immediate part swaps, nor frequent maintenance. In my opinion, a downhill bike with xc brakes is just plain dangerous. I've replaced at least 4 pairs of avid brakes with shimano because of integrity, performance, and lever feel. And if you ask me or if you've gotten the hint, AVID NEEDS TO STEP UP PRODUCT DESIGN. LOOK AT SHIMANO, THERES A REASON BEHIND EVERYTHING THEY DO.

Agree 100% with this statement. Avid/SRAM brakes are an OEM menace that needs to stop. Too many companies are stocking these useless Elixer 5's on otherwise high-quality builds and it really does present a safety issue - especially on a DH Rig. Sad part is, even their 'high end' XO's are essentially garbage that need to be tweaked after every ride. I would take SLX or ZEE stoppers over ANY level of Avid/SRAM product any day.

Opinions are exactly that: opinions. I switched the 2nd generation Saint for Avid Code because they just felt better in every way. the lever feel was sloppy on the saint, and they do not have the modulation that the Code has. I could lock up both wheels at any speed on the Code and not the Saint if I so chose to. (and this is a 44 Lb Norco A Line, so not light by any standard)

Interesting. I haven't used Saints enough to form a valid opinion, but my DH bike came stock with Codes and after 2-3 laps in the Park they were completely ineffective on several occasions. Swapped the 2012 XT's from my trail bike for the Codes and the difference was night and day. The Codes (now on my trail bike) are actually working relatively well (aside from the front squealing like a banshee) but they are not being pushed to the extent they were on the big bike, of course. I suppose (like you said) it comes down to opinion and preference in feel, as the Shimano's is definitely more of an on or off thing. The main point that I (and I think moth423) was trying to make, is that too many companies are saving costs on brakes by using lower end Avids, which on a DH rig, are far more critical than derailleurs, shifters, etc. Glad your Codes are working well though...cheers!

@jtnomad81: Very true, I've heard of problems with the Avid stuff more so than the Shimano stuff, and it all comes down to personal experience. I had the opposite with Saints lol, just absolutely poor experience. But I'd be willing to try them again, thats the perk of buying new bike stuff!

shimano has far more design behind there concepts. They run ceramic pistons. ceramic acts as a insulator and therefore keeps the heat out of the caliper. I am a mechanic in breckenridge, a huge fat tire community, and I've seen more avid brakes fail than any other brake. and more often than not it's when the brake is being over worked on a bike. i've rebuilt codes because the DOT ate away at the seals of the piston housing. I discovered this when i took a fist full of lever and it blew fluid all over the caliper. I understand that avid is a good price point, but no price is good for a hit or miss brake.

Ive been running x0 trails on my glory since last november on their second set of pads and have needed any maintenance! Vs someone else's zee brakes that have neededto be replaced and bled in a mater of months.

Have had the same set of Avid elixir 5 for 3 years now, I have absolutely done no maintenance to them, except for changing out the pads, and don't get me wrong, I make sure my bike is riding good and there aren't any problems, but have never really had to do anything to my brakes, and you know what they say if it aint broke don't fix it..

but you should bleed it. i bet that DOT is blacker than the blackest black, times infinity! bleed those things dude! before your internals get eaten away! all those rubber seals will deteriorate and you'll be bombing a trail and grab a fistfull of nothing

If you get Avids on clearout, swap the cables (you can even color match) and bleed carefully. They will work. I think the stock cables are too cheap, and the bleed quality control is poor. At the time I set up my current fleet of bikes, the Shimano brakes were the last generation which were underpowered. The newer ones are much better from what I have read. The real solution is the use of formula brakes. Even the entry level brakes are super strong. I have The One brakes on two of my bikes and they are amazing. I have also tried Hygia brakes- which were surprisingly good, and Clarks brakes, which have good power but not a lot of feel. Swapping hoses on those worked well to improve feel. I wouldn't use Hygia or Clarks on a DH bike, but they would be fine on a trail bike.

the elixir is definitely a gravity break, I got my breaks when I took a trip to highland mountain bike park, the dude at the bike shop said I definitely needed to upgrade my brakes (was running mechanical Hayes) and he said these were great, and they have been, just saying because I really don't think a lift access bike park's shop would sell me "xc" breaks specifically for riding at their park... Which raises the question, have most of you haters ever owned, tried, or let alone even looked into a pair of properly set up Avids?

being a bike mechanic and working in a shop in a fat tire community, I've seen and set up, and replaced alot of avid brakes. i've ridden them, done better than stock bleeds on them, and seen them not hold up. I'm not a hater. I just want people on quality product. I like working on bikes, but rider's dont like coughing up all the coin on work. So I advise a brake that doesnt need alot of maintenance. If you've had all the shimano training that i've had, you'd understand much more clearly why shop mechanics are more often to ride shimanos.

nice review and explanations of the bikes idea and background on one hand but i expected a little more write up how it actually rides and performes in different settings and different terrains etc...that's what really matters to me. with all the settings you can dial in. no magazine has done that satisfactory IMO.

of course opinions are subjective, but everybody likes to know riding impressions anyway (you dont have always the possibility to really testride)...especially when they say "we (also more than just one person who just writes the article) had the '20 on test for a while"..dont know what you expect...but i am no keyboard jockey, i am a every-weekend-bikepark-hitter and riding impressions help when you are interested in buying a new bike. the more opionions about a product you read the better you can sumarize yourself and narrow down...what is important for you etc. i mean how bike's settings can be changed and all, ben walker explains that in his videos already...or other reviews showed that, too...not to mention the scott homepage that provides the data.if you build a bike where you can set so many different things it would be interesting to read about how it rides when you change the different settings, or not!?

Waki you're right about subjectivism. One thing I think the MTB press sorely lacks when compared to the motorcycle press is scientific testing, telemetry and data logging. If you look in any motorcycle magazine, when they do bike tests, they log everything. Several bikes, several riders, several laps, top speed tests, acceleration, braking, everything gets mapped out so it's there for you to see. You can read things like "Guy Martin says the GSX-R600 is gutless, but the data logger shows it isn't. The R6 has a pathetic midrange, making its slightly stronger than average top end feel like more than it is". In other words, even the opinion of a much respected world class racer is called into question by data logging.

I would like to see the same happen for DH bike tests. Take the chains off. Find a steep bit of DH track, use data loggers and record every bike and every test rider. That way, we can all see which bike holds speed, which bike corners, etc. We need to get scientific, then no one can cry foul about bike companies paying off the press like we all know they indirectly do via advertising.

Mnah, I was actualy kidding. It depends what one wants from a review. Top Gear is the most successful motorsport program ever, by an incredible margin, yet their way of testing... You know... Anyway that says something about "rationale" of majority of the population. The question is how much do we really want to learn about a product and how much do we want to be entertained. The trouble with MTB is that, refering to the latest bike vs. rider poll, it's so much about the rider, that it is impossible to be too objective. Therefore I often find it irrelevant when people talk about logic, facts, reasoning, science...

That's true. Top Gear was great fifteen years ago when it was actually about cars. Now it's just like all the other shite on TV, totally contrived and scripted, actors playing roles. What a load of shit... and the people? They love it!

Pretty spot on review. I've been riding the gambler 20 for about a month now and let me tell you, this is about 4 different bikes in one. So much adjustability. I started out running a short wheel base, high BB, and standard 62 degree head tube angle. It was fast and stable. Though on the jumps (especially steeper ones, think A line) I found the front wheel would jump out from under me leaving me unbalanced. To fix that I could have done a head set cup change, but a simple lowering of the crowns on the stanchions gave me more control of the front end and more manuverablity in corners. Just a little 3rd party take on it and some advice for people trying to jump it.

The headset though.... Sounds like a machine gun and gets dirt in the bottom bearings constantly. I'm at around 4 overhauls now.

I was looking for this review last week... great timing PB! I had a spin on one yesterday that was too small for me. I have to say it looks fantastic and the build quality looks amazing. Totally cool bike. If I was going to buy a new bike this week, this would be it (but I'd put my Totem in it so it would go in the boot easier). Love it. Looks a lot better than the factory green colour, and has more real world components. I've got a few Zee parts on my bike now and I'm so happy with them I wouldn't spend my money on saint. Cranks are the same weight and look better, brakes have the same calipers, rear mech has the clutch. I feel now it's like Saint: What's the point? Good going Scott, nicest bike I've seen since the Wilson Carbon.

If anyone is thinking about getting Zee parts, DO it. I have shifter, der, and front hub. The shifting is so precise is can't even believe it. I really despise the look of alot of the entry level-gravity stuff. Zee looks amazing and high end, people ask me about the parts all the time at the riding spot. Shimano did such a good job with the zee lineup, I just wanted people to know howbadass the parts are.

Excellent bike. Rode the cheaper white version in Northstar for a day. Has a lot of traction. The front slips very late and can take a lot of weight. Minions would be an Upgrade. This bike wants softest springs possible , slackest setup, no pop and has a very high speed - on par with a 951 and a Hydro and way better than a Glory. The black Rs fork works and adjusts well, no esoteric fox shit needed here, and good.

I don't really get budget DH bikes... Its much cheaper to buy a second hand frame that has a couple of scuffs for cheap then spend the money on good parts on a frame that is a couple of years old and just as good as when it was made (which lets be fair is better than 99.9% of riders anyway) and has been well tested for defects. That's what I have done and love it! about 1/3 the price of this too.

I love this new review with component breakdown including some bad points - thankyou PB you have been listening - it seems all comments about Fox's latest stuff is people saying they dive really badly, especially with the CTD stuff, also I agree Elixirs don't have nearly enough power for confident downhill riding, Shimano and Hope are way ahead of the brake game!

Cannondale (when they actually made their bikes in house) did fatigue testing on conventionally welded and double-pass welded frames. The school books say double-pass welds are weaker, but the tests showed a marked improvement in longevity for the two-pass, flush-type weld. You can divide the factories that use this technique for technical improvement from those who simply want the carbon look by checking if they skip the two-pass treatment in less obvious areas, like the BB.

@RC as I recall, Cannondale never used double pass welds. I was their biggest fan back in the mid-90s and I seem to remember them showing photos in their sales brochures showing their normal welds being ground down smooth afterwards. They used hand held mini belt sander looking devices I think. I don't know, it could be a brain fart. Maybe someone from the original Cannondale can chime in and clear it up.

I visited the Cannondale factory at various times. They did touch them with sanders, but just enough to take any high points off for cosmetic purposes. The frames were still two-pass welds. They probably wouldn't sand them now, because the practice is widely used and understood. ON different subject, almost all Ti frames are two-pass welds, but for different reasons.

Two pass is cosmetic. Grinding welds is cosmetic. It weakens aluweld and increases the chance of the seams coming apart. Todays aluframes, and most have cosmetic sanding done to mimick carbonframes - are weak. Ti benefits from twopass welds, forgot why, been a while... Two pass welds lets you work with increased jigg tolerances, weldrod is the new putty...

Many C`dales came apart in the nineties and they actually only looked good and smooth in a dark shopenvironment. My frame failed twice.

My Cannondales (2 Killer Vs and an F2000) were the absolute shiznit. Those welds were so good back then. When frames failed, dealers had to cut out the bottom bracket shells with a hacksaw and send them back to Cannondale Europe. Cannondale were famous for having the best warranty - 15 years on the frame. They were expensive but in my eyes worth it. One time, a customer's Killer V frame cracked and we duly hacksawed the BB shell out. Us young lads in the workshop decided to try to rip the stays off using muscle. Bear in mind the whole back end was only held on by that beautiful wishbone at the seat stay... two guys standing in the frame to hold it still we all took turns to try to bend the back end off but to no avail. It barely even flexed. Magic. I mean, I was only 16 or so and not the deadlifter I am now, but even so that frame was strong beyond belief.

No worries. The 'went south' caption was RC so more info is only fair. It simply refers to the lower jockey wheel on the E13 guides being their weak point, with extra play and seizing being two frequent issues with them. The tiny bearing just struggles to cope with the elements and abuse it sees in action; on the expensive one it falls below expectations but on the cheaper guide it's more forgivable given the variance in price between the two units.

Fox promoted propoganda to support not spending the money on developing a new line. This was extensively tested in moto 2 decades ago, and the best weight to stiffness is the inverted design. Torsional rigidity is the cited weakness, but unless you are riding with a wheel stuck in a 18" deep rut, the tire doesn't have enough traction to affect the twist LOL!!! Fore aft rigidity is significantly higher on inverted designs.

Your tire does not have enough traction to overcome the slight reduction in rigidity. Ask anyone who rides MX, and they will laugh at the MTBers belief that conventional forks track better. When your fork flexes fore and aft, the trail and rake change, causing handling problems. This happens to a lesser degree with an inverted design. The greatest flex with a fork is at the clamp. The inverted design is way stiffer here, resulting in improved steering precision. They are just more expensive to manufacture as they require tighter tolerances than a conventional design. Fox just wanted to milk a few more years out of the conventional design by revising its current chassis, and the sheeple will buy into the marketing. All the "Fox We're No Worthy!!" chanting is getting a bit old. Brake hard into a corner and watch your head angle change =/- 1-2 degrees with a conventional design. The Dorado, the Emerald, and the new X Fusion forks are going inverted. Fox tested them for a reason, and they will come out with an inverted design in a few years. The conventional design is on its last legs. In 5 years they will go the way of the 26" wheel. As for the tinfoil hat, have you ever spent a full season on an inverted fork, then try to switch back to conventional? They feel different the first few rides (inverted) but you soon realize your wheel is tracking better. Go back to conventional and braking along with tracking takes a huge hit. It feels scary in comparison. (BTW, I have been riding motorcycles and bicycles offroad since I was 8, and I'm 42 now.)

You mean the guys paid to say their products are the best? Whatever. Keep sheepling.

From an early review of the Dorado:

So what do I really think?

The truth is that no matter how good the Dorado is, and it really is that good, there will be those that will find fault with it. Let's be honest here, it could be easy to find something to pick out: it's carbon and no matter how much proof is out there or how well it is made you are sure that you will snap it in two simply by loading it onto your bike rack! And of course it's inverted and you simply will not be able to ride down your local hill without the front wheel pointing off in the wrong direction! Oh yeah, it's holy-shit expensive and you... Ok, I'll give you that one as I'll never be able to afford it either! But wait, the new aluminum legged version sporting the same amazing internals could be just the ticket for us bike bums. I'll be truthful, when bits of info and pictures of the new Dorado were first made available I immediately balked at the prospect of the new fork. Even though I'd had plenty of great experiences with TPC+ damping in both the original Dorado, and later a much loved 7" Travis, I still was not sold on the new fork as a whole. At a much greater price than some of the competition, as well as a much flashier appearance, I almost wanted it to not live up to the expectations. That is obviously not the case. As much as I would like to find fault with the Dorado, speaking strictly about the fork's performance, I simply can't. Pretty much every suspension company out there manages to produce a full fledged DH fork that will never hold most of us back, none of the other top forks are exactly dogs, but with the Dorado on the front of my bike I had more confidence than ever before and that says a lot. At the end of it you can find all the faults you like, the reality is that this is the highest performing no-compromise DH fork available to consumers out of the box.

Oh, BTW, the lefty is known as the stiffest design in its respective classes as well, partly due to the inverted design. This is just one of the best marketing sells in the history of sports. Just for your information too, a solid axle has more flex than a hollow one, and aluminum has less flex than steel. Perfect example of something that sounds good, but doesn't make sense mechanically. Going to a 25mm axle or a hex axle erases the rigidity issue to negligible.

Yeah your right. A company is going to produce a slower product for the sake of marketing? What proof do you have? Thought so. Your an idiot if you think there is a "Fox Conspiracy". Gwin and Gee said it was too flexy. I'll believe them over a bike review. Can bike reviewers really hold a candle to that calibre of a top WC rider?

Decrease the leverage and increase the shock stroke. No shit! Wow its about time. Now about that rising rate linkage. WTF? Are coil springs progressive? No.Why would you not use a falling rate linkage that starts off at 3 to 1 and falls off to 2.5 to 1 at the end of the stroke? Plush at the beginning and does not bottom out easily.

@Shredder: When the press/manufacturers talk about rising rate designs they're referring to systems which require an increasing force per mm/inch of travel at the shock, otherwise known as progressive, with the rate they're referring to as rising being the force required from the wheel to compress the shock (rather than the actual leverage ratio you refer to). The reducing leverage ratio you mentioned is progressive in that the force required to move the shock per mm of travel will increase as the leverage on the shock decreases through the travel. Similarly, a regressive system would have an increasing leverage ratio, or in other words the additional force required from the wheel to compress each additional mm of the shock would decrease.

@Wakaba: Fox, and most other shock designers with the exception of BOS and Cane Creek/Ohlins use large shafts to provide high volume fluid displacement, and in essence a small air spring, which creates a progressive spring curve. In contrast, the BOS and CC use a small diameter shaft and rely on pure damping to control the shaft speed.

I think the perspective in that shot's perhaps a little off (there's always a shot you find you didn't get). There's no problem with tyre clearance using the supplied 2.35" Muddy Mary's which are a pretty tall tyre, and that was with it in short wheelbase which will show the clearance at its tightest.

well, the bike looks great, but the suspencion looks so complicated. im am not quite sure if i want pay the money for this bike. if you have to change the spring or what ever, its gonna take forewer. i believe they designed this frame just to be different from others O_O

It's literally a three minute job - undo the lower bolt, undo the top bolt, and pull out the shock. It looks surrounded by metalwork from the side but the front of the linkage is open so it's a straightforward and drama free process to swap out springs/shocks.

Hey RC & Alasdair,Small correction, I am not the Chier Engineer at Scott. That title belongs Benoit Grelier. Furthermore, Mathieu Landre was the engineer on this bike. I am a Product Manager and was one of many to work on this bike. Thanks!Ben

By holding both in hands, next to each other, I'd say that wide range Zee is SLX with short cage and different graphics. But who cares. Saint is bloody monstrous, too bad you can utilize the stiffness of paralleogram only if you use the direct mount hanger, otherwise you will bend that thin upper plate and make the derailleur useless anyways. It is possible to get a replacement part from Shimano but it's not easy.

Actually that was carefulness, not laziness. I asked a question that when beyond the skope of the article. The article never mentioned that Zee was altogether different than Saint. It just said stronger. I actually thought the difference between Saint and Zee was just a different alloy, less CNC'ing, and a lower performance spring. I'm glad I asked now because it will make a difference when I consider my next derailleur choice. Your comment was ignorance at its worst.

I love bikes more then most of you. I stop driving just to ride bikes for every thing. Work, shopping. But the pricing to me is out of hand. I have about 10 bikes now. And only one of them is new. The rest I bought used and built up. Just because the new stuff cost to much.